quality vaccine so that's number one. number two, we should all take our hats off to what j&j did. >> we leave this to fulfill our 40 plus year commitment to live coverage of congress. washington journal available online at c-span .org. we take you live to the senate about to gavel back in following their party lunch meetings. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. madam president, this week is national police week and i rise today in honor of the service and sacrifice of law enforcement across this country. in north carolina, we lost ten law enforcement officers in 2020 and we've tragically lost six so far in 2021. some of these officers were victims of covid, others were involved in car accidents, and some made the ultimate sacrifice killed in the line of duty. recent tragedies in gaston,

henderson and wagtoga counties in my state of north carolina have been met with an outpouring of gratitude, appreciation and love from the members of the community they help keep safe. last september we lost brian hendricks after he was shot and killed responding to a break-in. officer hendricks was only 35 years old. he had two young children and set to be marrieds to his fiance the following month. last december, tyler herndon was tragically killed in the line of duty days before his 26th birthday. in december, officer jason shupin was shot and killed while responding to an attempted carjacking. officer shuping was only 25 years old. he left behind his wife haley

who, his high school sweetheart. i had the sad honor to commemorate law enforcement day and to honor officer shupin's service. most recently on april 28, north carolina tragically lost two more law enforcement officers, sergeant chris ward and k-9 deputy logan fox of the watoga county sheriff's office. they were responding to al welfare check that turned into a standoff. sergeant ward leaves behind a wife who was also his high school sweetheart and two daughters. deputy fox was only 25 years old. he was a two-year veteran of the watoga sheriff's office and had a partner k-9 named raven.

he was engaged and soon to be married. the people of north carolina came to pay their final respects to these brave officers just over a week ago. during the travel from winston-salen, back to boone, many stood by and proudly waved american flags. i told the police officers in concord that you need to know that a majority of americans still greatly appreciate your service to law enforcement. they recognize that the vast majority of men and women serving in law enforcement are good people who put their uniforms every day willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect us. being a law enforcement officer is not an easy job, and it's certainly not safe. we saw that on capitol hill on january 6. but being an officer is becoming

harder and harder as they handle more stress, more pressure, and more responsibilities than ever before. if their jobs weren't hard enough already, it there are some people, including people on capitol hill, who are actively demonizing all of law enforcement. arguing they are unworthy of taxpayer funding and the people's respect. it's no wonder why many law enforcement officers across the nation -- offices across the nation have low morale and we're seeing the real-world consequences, a decrease in applications to go to academies, early exits and more retirements. it's gotten to danger why you levels in several cities across the country. the commonnization of law enforcement will have lasting consequences and ultimately make all of us less safe. this is why congress must do everything we can to support law enforcement and to stop efforts to demean and demonize them.

the best way to do that is recognize that law enforcement, for -- excuse me, recognize law enforcement for their remarkable service and the dangers they face to protect us. that's why i recently reintroduced the protect and serve act. this legislation would make it a federal crime to intentionally assault a law enforcement officer. it ensures prosecutors have every tool available to punish those who attack and target them. in 2018, the protect and serve act passed the house by a vote of 382-35, and it had the support of every current member of the house democratic leadership. if president biden is serious about unity, i can think of no better bill for him to support. this week, i'll be -- i'll be introducing another important piece of legislation, the probation officer protection act .this bill will give probation officers the arrest authority

they need to enforce the law and protect public safety. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will cosponsor this bill and work with me to send it to the president's desk, along with the protect and serve act. i know every member of congress has seen the heroism of law enforcement first hand. i did too. we all saw on january 6, when capitol police and d.c. police risked their lives to ensure our safety. we ultimately lost two capitol police officers, we've lost another since then, and more than 440 of our capitol police and d.c. police were injured in the events of january 6. i hope the respect and appreciation we show to law enforcement this week can be sustained year round. let us commit ourselves to doing all we can to support the men and women in blue who protect and serve us every single day.

thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: madam president, i rise in recognition of national police week, where we honor, remember, and support public servants who dedicate their lives to keeping our communities safe. today i specifically recognize louisiana law enforcement officers who lost their lives in 2020 performing their duty. we should all thank god for law enforcement officers and their willingness to put their lives between us and danger knowing that they may have to sacrifice their lives as 15 did in louisiana this past year. to the families, wives, husbands, and children of these fallen louisiana peace officers, we share your pain and we share your pride for he or she who was

here for us all. these are the officers in louisiana who died this past year in the line of service. deputy levi kelly around senior, trooper george bowman baker, louisiana state police, officer bates, videla police department, reserve captain raymond captain bozeman, parole officer kale, louisiana department of public safety and corrections, captain steven river, deputy sheriff gill ri, jefferson davis parish, mark albert hall senior, new orleans, prison department,

lieutenant glen jr., correctional deputy michael pitts, deputy sheriff donald donna michelle richardson, captain kevin paul trajan, captain randy michael valid, officer marshal lee junior and officer sharon welcomes, they are passing, each of theirs, was felt throughout our state and they are tragic reminders of the danger law enforcement officers face every day when they report for duty, and they know it, they accept the risks, their families accept the risks, their spouse, their children. we must honor their sacrifice. i ask that he wiewl join in prayer for the fallen officers and we keep in prayer those who

protect us during the day. it's a difficult time, but knowing our country supports can make a difference. the annual blue at the zoo event was canceled that seeks to foster interactive experiences with the new orleans police department. the new orleans police department superintendent sean ferg sorn -- ferguson said that he was disheartened by that. we need more events, not fewer. we have much work to do. but today let's acknowledge those who put their lives on the line every day they put on the uniform. let's remember those we lost too soon. let's honor the work they do to keep us safe. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. merkley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. there is no quorum call? i ask unanimous consent that we begin the vote now and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be so. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 54, the nays are 44, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. mr. van hollen: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. vom: madam president, i ask

unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. van hollen: madam president, i move to proceed to calendar number 57, s.j. res. 15. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 57, s.j. res. 15, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rule submitted by the office of the comptroller of currency relating to national banks and federal savings associations as lenders. the presiding officer: the motion is not debatable. the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. van hollen: madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 57, s.j. res. 15, joint resolution providing for congressional

disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, and so forth. the presiding officer: under the provisions of 5 u.s.c. 802, there will now be up to ten hours of debate equally divided. mr. van hollen: madam president, i will be back a little later to debate the resolution. for the information of my colleagues, we expect to vote on passage of the joint resolution of disapproval around 5:30 p.m. today. mr. toomey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, i rise in opposition to s.j. res. 15. madam president, this is a misguided resolution. it would overturn an important banking resolution, the o.c.c.'s true lender rule. that's a rule that helps give consumers more access to credit. overturning the true lender rule is a bad idea. it would reduce access to credit

for consumers, especially those who have the most difficult -- difficulty obtaining credit. it would stifle innovation, and it would inhibit the functioning of our markets, banking, and credit markets -- our nation's banking and credit markets. let me explain why preserving this rule is so important. in the last decade, we have seen financial technology companies often referred to as fin-tecs use technology to revolutionize services. and community and mid-sized banks who often lack the resources to develop banking technology in house are partnering with these fin every tecs to compete more effectively and offer their customers more terrific services at ever-better prices. that's what these partnerships do. they help consumers because they increase competition in lending markets, they lower the price of financial products, they improve

credit options, and they expand consumer choice. now, unfortunately, a patchwork of different legal tests in different courts had made it difficult to predict whether the bank or the finn-tec partner when they teamed up would be responsible for a given loan they would make together. last year, the o.c.c. issued its true lender rule to provide the needed regulatory clarity, and the rule -- the simple version of this is it simply holds that a national bank will be responsible for a loan if it is named in the loan agreement or if it funds the loan, which banks be often do when they team up with finn-tec in these ways. now, some of our democratic colleagues have claimed the rule, the true lender rule allows unaccountable rent of charter arrangements, as they call them, but in fact the true lender rule prevents the rent a charter scheme and it does so because it ensures that the

national banks are accountable for the loans they issue through these lending partnerships, and it requires the o.c.c. to supervise those loans for compliance with consumer protection and antidiscrimination laws. now, other colleagues have expressed concern that the rule will trap consumers in arrangements with high interest rates and a principle balance that can never be paid back, but actually, madam president, that's not possible with these o.c.c.-chartered banks, which are the only ones affected by this rule, and that's because a bank is required under the o.c.c. regulation to assess a borrower's ability to repay before making the loan. so if a bank is systematically approving clones by this fintech partnership to consumers who can't repay the debt, they will face serious consequences from their regulator, and that's a lot more protection than what would otherwise exist for

consumers. now, some of my democratic colleagues claim that the true lender law fundamentally changes existing laws about interest rates. in fact, it preserves existing law. for over four decades, federal law has allowed banks to essentially export the state law governing interest rates from the home state where the bank is based, so this allows the bank to comply with one law of the bank's home state rather than have to try to comply with 50 different laws of its -- of the 50 states in which its customers may reside. and having this single standard allows for a competitive national credit market. the true lender rule simply allows fintechs that partner with banks to get the same treatment. it's really not very different than what happens today with credit cards, and may i remind

everyone credit cards can often have high interest rates. so if you believe that bank fintech providers shouldn't be able to export interest rates from the state in which the bank is headquartered, then i suppose you ought to be in favor of eliminating credit cards for all americans. that would be a terrible policy. it would be a bad policy to get true of -- rid of the true lendr rule as well. i've heard the argument that the true lender rule harms low-income consumers. in fact it benefits low-income consumers the most by preserving their access to well-regulated bank issued credit. absent the rule, uncertainty about which partner, whether it's the bank or the fintech company, is the true lender, it means there would be uncertainty about what laws to apply to the transaction and whether or not the loan would be considered valid. without the rule, without that certainty, the secondary market for these loans would be disrupted.

and, again, that disproportionally harms lower-income borrowers. why is that? it's because banks frequently sell these loans after they are made so that they free up the capital to make the next loan. banks can issue far fewer loans if they can't reliably sell the ones that they have into the secondary market. uncertainty, as we would have in the absence of the true lender rule diminishes the ability to sell into the secondary market and that means fewer loans are going to get booked altogether. those that are are going to be more expensive and they will be limited to people of hire credit ratings. this isn't just my opinion. 47 leading financial economists from harvard, stanford and other leading universities made exactly these points in an amicus brief supporting the existing rule. and we've got i am peer cal proof.

-- empirical proof. after a 2014 court rule created uncertainty about the ability to export interest rates to new york, it became significantly harder for hire-risk borrowers to get loans in new york. this is not surprising. this is exactly what you would expect. this is what will happen nationally if this c.r.a. is successful in repealing the true lender rule. now some of my colleagues want to overturn the true lender rule because doing so would subject more loans to state interest rate caps, they say. but in fact, the more likely effect is that the loans will just never get made in the first place, and that's terrible for the low-income consumer for whom that loan is the best available option. the true lender rule preserves access to well-regulated bank-offered credit. at the end of the day, madam president, we need to remember if the c.r.a. is successful and the true lender rule is repealed, demand for

credit won't disappear. the need for credit doesn't go away because we get rid of a good rule. you simply make it harder for people who need loans to get them, and you'll drive consumers to unregulated alternatives. voting in favor of the c.r.a., which would kill this rule, is also a direct assault on fintech it would make it harder for congress to legislate in this area. it will make it harder for regulators to issue guidance and rules to promote the healthy competition that fintechs represent. courts will see this as congress buying into this completely false notion that fintechs are somehow inherently predatory. they're not. and it will scare away state legislators from promoting fintech. if you believe financial innovation and competition are good things for consumers, as i

do, then you should oppose this c.r.a. for all these reasons, madam president, i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against s.j. res. 15, and i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: today i'm proud to join my colleague, senator coons, in relaunching the bipartisan senate a.l.s. caucus. currently there are no effective treatments or cures available to stop or slow the disease, and we still do not know what really

causes a.l.s. more than 5,000 americans are diagnosed each year, yet there is no a.l.s. survivor community. individuals diagnosed with a.l.s. and their loved ones rely on their elected officials to advocate on their behalf. that is why the mission of the senate a. l.s. caucus is to raise awareness about the difficulties faced by a.l.s. patients and their families and to advance policies that improve their quality of life and to advocate for meaningful research. may also marks the a.l.s. awareness month. last congress, senator coons and i introduced and passed a resolution to designate may 2020 as a.l.s. awareness month. this effort, like the a.l.s. caucus, will raise awareness

about the impact of a.l.s. on those who are diagnosed, their loved ones, and their caregivers. i look forward to reintroducing again here in may 2021 the awareness month for a.l.s., and i hope my colleagues will help pass this resolution again this year. there's more to be done, though, in really battling a. a.l.s. promising therapies that have demonstrated clinical safety and efficacy are on the horizon for those with a.l.s. failure to approve these promising treatments means the difference between life and premature death for these patients. and sadly, the paradigm of the past has been to not be erring on the side when there's a promising treatment, to push it

through the system. sadly, it's been indicative of what happens often in this place, is that you belabor it, you stretch it out, and in this case it's got a much different consequence. patients with a.l.s. have been very clear that they are willing to take a higher degree of risk to have access to these treatments at an earlier point in time. in september 2019, the f.d.a. issued new guidance on developing drugs for a.l.s. which touted regulatory flexibility when applying the standard of safety and efficacy to drugs for diseases with serious unmet medical needs. f.d.a. guidance has been an empty promise, and patients with a.l.s. lack flexible regulatory pathways to promising

treatments as a result. indicative in a way of what i mentioned earlier where we seem to always be aware of those kinds of issues, we tell the agencies that might be involved, and then there is that natural tendency towards inertia. for example, amalyx, a pharmaceutical company focused on developing a.l.s. treatments, announced clinical trial results of a promising treatment that slowed the progression of the disease and increased survival by six months. that may not seem like a long time, but when you take into consideration from the point of diagnosis to the point of dying from a.l.s., that is a lot of time, and the benefit of the doubt when you've got a promising clinical trial needs to be given to the patient so that they have some hope. europeans, canadians, they

have put a dynamic into place that would be quigleyer footed than -- quicker footed than our own f.d.a.'s. need to take that into guidance. unfortunately the f.d.a. expressed the need for additional clinical trials before allowing patients access to drugs in the u.s. this means patients will not receive access when they can see others in canada and europe being able to. we need to get with it. and when you've got the condition of no effective treatment and it's working in other places, need to get the benefit of the doubt. failing to use its flexibility, and we've just seen, and i witnessed -- all of us did -- with the coronavirus. the f.d.a., c.d.c. squabbling out of the gate about what to do with coronavirus. thanks goodness we did do something that was going to change that dynamic.

we'd still be wrestling over a vaccine if it had been business as usual. it's clear here for even a better reason that nothing is out there that's working. promising things on the horizon, we need to do better. that is why i will be reintroducing the promising pathway act, the legislative solution to give those struggling with life-threatening illnesses like a.l.s. a fighting chance of access to timely, meaningful treatments, especially when they're overwhelmingly wanting it, willing to take the risk. the promising pathway act would require the f.d.a., require the f.d.a. to establish a rolling realtime priority review to evaluate the progress and not make it subjective the way it is

now to where they can do what they have been doing, and that's dragging their feet. under this pathway, provisional approval would be granted by the f.d.a. to drugs demonstrating substantial evidence of safety and relevant evidence of positive therapeutic outcomes like those demonstrated in amlyx's clinical trials. it's right here. we just need to do it, and you're going to be doing what a. l.s. patients would prefer. this also encourages further research and clinical trials in not only a.l.s., but this of course should apply to other diseases that are similar where we're still wrestling with in clinical trials the ability to get these across the finish line

but it does, and it strengthens the f.d.a.'s postmarket sur-- surveillance and grants access to treatments covered by insurance. to my colleagues, it is time to roll up our sleeves and work to advance policies that improve the quality of a.l.s. patients. i encourage every member to lean in on this, to be a part of it so that we can help people that have no other hope. it's up to us to speak for those who can no longer speak, to stand up for those who can no longer stand. i am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are returning members of the a.l.s. caucus, and i welcome those who are new to the caucus this congress. as the a.l.s. caucus continues to grow its membership, our commitment to the mission of the a.l.s. caucus and the a.l.s. community is strengthened along the way.

i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be

suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this is national police week and yesterday i spoke about the importance of police in our activities, our daily life. i come to the floor now to address my colleagues about a piece of legislation i'm putting in. i recently reintroduced the protecting america's first responder act, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by 11 of my colleagues. this bill passed the senate by unanimous consent in the last congress. in this new congress, it's time that we once again turn our attention to the public service officers across our nation who steadfastly serve and protect fellow americans.

these great men and women fulfill some of our most vital and irreplaceable needs. their duties affect every part of our communities. we've seen that clearly, very clearly over the past year as their services have been instrumental in keeping our community safe during the pandemic. our firefighters dedicate themselves to braving harrowing fires. our police officers rush headlong into danger to protect the innocent. emergency first responders dutifully come to the aid of the injured no matter the threat. despite these vast responsibilities, their purpose is very much the same, to serve and protect their communities. we know this call to service

comes with great risk. we in congress will forever be indebted to the capitol police officers who suffered substantial injuries and even gave their lives on these very grounds. there's no way for us to truly comprehend or repay the sacrifices made by these officers and their loved ones left behind. yet knowing this, our public safety officers willingly accept the responsibilities of injury and if need be, lay down their lives to fulfill their duties and their oath. we owe our firefighters, law enforcement, and all our first responders a great deal and we don't say thank you enough. they don't hesitate to take action when we need them to.

and we must be equally steadfast in coming to their aid by ensuring that those officers disabled or killed, killed in the line of duty receive what they are due. they must receive what we in congress first promised now, four and a half decades ago through the law that is called the public safety officers benefit program. so the original psob program was created in 1976. yet since that time it's been plagued with unclear and o out-of-date regulations forcing families of our fallen heroes to continually suffer through technical interpretations and

drawn out claim processes. this cannot continue. so this bill that 11 of us have introduced, the protecting america's first responders act, ensures that disability claims are consistent with congress' original intent for the psob program. it received wide bipartisan support here in the united states senate in the last congress. unfortunately the bill stalled in the house. over the last year, i've worked closely with congr congressman s quell to work through amendments that can pass the house. i'm confident that with these changes, it will read -- we'll reach the president's desk very quickly. the 117th congress has a fresh

opportunity to make this bill law, and there are many waiting for us to do exactly that. i introduce this bill with strong support from organizations including the fraternal order of police, the federal law enforcement officers association, and the national association of police organizations. i urge my colleagues to once again vote for the protecting america's first responders act thereby fulfilling the original promise to honor those whose lives were forever altered by their service. on another subject, mr. president, i come to the floor probably to explain to my colleagues something i've done on three or four different

occasions, and nobody ever seems to get it right. so i'm back here again trying to explain something so we don't have to deal with it again. so here we go again. while i was traveling throughout iowa meeting with stilts, i kempt -- meeting with constituents, i kept my eyes on news reporting out of washington, d.c. i've seen a lot of bad reporting in my time. the events that occurred starting on april 30 are there at the top of bad reporting. "the washington post," "the new york times," and nbc all had to retract their reporting about russian disinformation warnings given to rudy giuliani. i'm not here to talk about rudy giuliani. i'm talking about how this

report affects me and senator johnson. because unfortunately in "the washington post" article, my and senator johnson's investigations into the biden family's financial dealings was tethered once again to russian disinformation attempts, and that tethering is what i've been here on the floor of the house maybe more than a year now trying to explain that that just is a big hoax. the report was based on an anonymous current and former u.s. officials. apparently "the washington post" still hasn't figured out how to read a senate report. my staff also spent many hours talking with the post the day before the story ran in order to

help them understand. and i presume they called us. we didn't call them. so i'm going to quote from my staff's e-mailing them the following. which in the end the post complete -- the "post" completely ignored in their article. so here's a long e-mail. senator grassley's report with senator johnson relied on obama-era u.s. government records and information from a democrat-aligned u.s. lobby shop which employed telizhenko while representing the corrupt ukrainian gas company burisma. the e-mail goes on. senator grassley never received a defending briefing related to his oversight of the biden

family's foreign business ventures. discussions with the f.b.i. and the intelligence community were initiated by requests from democrats as is detailed in section 10 of the report. the f.b.i. and members of the intelligence community indicated last year that there was no reason for the committee's investigation to be halted even with knowledge of telizhenko's limited involvement. see report page 59, the e-mail says to the "post." continuing to read from my staff's e-mail to them. the report and its underlying transcripts further reveal that telizhenko had deep and long-standing relationships with the obama state department officials, national security

counsel staff -- council staff and left-wing lobbyists. the transcripts also illustrate that material created by and ws introduced not by republicans and was quickly rejected by an expert witness as disinformation. and then in paren that see -- par reason sees see j. and george kent's response to minority staff regarding that exhibit. continuing to record from the e-mail to the "post." following a classified letter authored by democratic leadership, portions of which were later leaked and reportedly referenced derkach democrats

sought f.b.i. and intelligence community briefing which was provided in august 2020. at that briefing the f.b.i. stated that its' not attempting to -- and these are the words that the f.b.i. used -- quash, curtail, or interfere in the investigation in any way. and then in pare parentheses its see report page 59. that's not the sort of direction provided at defensive briefings, my staff's e-mail says to the "post." then continuing to quote. obviously we didn't rely on any of this for the report's findings on hunter biden's and james biden's extensive financial entanglements with questionable foreign nationals, including some connected to the

communist chinese government. subsequently to the report the public has also learned that hunter biden is under criminal investigation relating to his financial entanglements. given telizhenko's long-standing ties to blue star strategies and obama administration officials, are you similarly asking them whether they played into some russian push narrative. now i'm going to go back because that question needs to be repeated. it's not repeated in the e-mail. i'm reading to you. given telizhenko's long-standing ties to the blue star strategy in obama administration -- and obama administration officials, are you, meaning the "post," similarly asking them whether they played into some russian push narrative?

continuing to quote. given that democrats introduced derkach material, are you similarly asking them whether they played into some russian push narrative? now, that's the end of the quote. and i think those last two questions indicate because obviously the newspaper article doesn't say that they asked these questions that i repeated one twice and then the other question, they aren't really interested in getting to the bottom of this. now, after all this information and a long conversation -- and long conversations, the question post op-ed opted for unnamed sources rather than on-the-record comments from my

staff. so they had an opportunity to quote grassley and explain all this stuff and what do they do? they use an anonymous source. maybe the "post" should work on putting more investigation into so-called investigative reporting instead of focusing on false russian disinformation narratives. for example, maybe spend some time expecting chinese nationals connected to the communist regime and military and intelligence services. i addressed these disinformation issues at length in my committee-reported with senator johnson as well as right here on the floor of the senate three or four times over the course of many months, maybe stretching into more than a year. i'm going to do this again, even

though i've got better things to do. if you want every detail, read section 10 in our september 23, 2020, report. on july 13, 2020, then-minority leader schumer, senator warner, speaker pelosi, and representative schiff sent a letter with a classified attachment to the f.b.i. to express purported belief that congress was the subject of foreign disinformation campaign. a classified attachment included unclassified elements that attempted and failed to tie our work to andrii derkach, a russian agent. this document falsely accused us of potentially receiving

material from derkach. it was pure speculative nonsense that the liberal media ran with, as what they would call or want you to believe as truth. and you know what it was? it was garbage. those unclassified elements were leaked to the press to support a false campaign accusing us of using russian disinformation. then during the course of our investigation, we ran a transcribed interview of george continue. before that interview, the democrats derkach's materials. during that interview, they asked the witness about t he stated, quote, what you're

asking me to interpret is a master chart of disinformation and maligned influence, end of quote. at that interview, the democrats introduced known disinformation into the investigative record as an exhibit. now, more precisely, the democrats relied upon and disseminated known disinformation from a foreign source when the intelligence community warned was actively seeking to influence u.s. politics. but there's yet more. on july 16, then-ranking member wyden and senator peters wrote a letter to me and senator johnson asking for a briefing from the

intelligence community on matters relating to our investigation. on july 28, 2020, senator johnson and i reminded those two senators that the f.b.i. and relative members of the intelligence community had already briefed the committee in march 2020 and assssured us -- and assured us that there was no reason to discontinue the investigation that we were involved in. on august 2020, subsequent to these democrat-led letters, senator johnson and i had a briefing from the f.b.i. on behalf of the intelligence community. however, in that briefing, the f.b.i. discussed matters that were already known and completely irrelevant to the substance of our investigation.

the f.b.i. also made clear that it was not attempting to -- and these are the f.b.i. words -- quote, quash, curtail, or interfere, end of quote, in the investigation in any way. any talk about an f.b.i. briefing warning us that our investigation into the biden family financial and business associations was connected to russian disinformation is complete nonsense. such briefing -- or no such briefing ever happened. our investigation was based on obama administration government records and records from a democrat-aligned lobby shop -- blue star strategies. if those records amount to russian disinformation, then

that means the obama administration dealt in disinformation every day, which brings me to the ultimate point that i want to bring to the attention today. the f.b.i. assured me that the august 2020 briefing, which was a pointless briefing that shouldn't have happened, would remain confidential. that's what the f.b.i. told us, that it would be confidential. however, i was concerned that the substance of this briefing -- or at least elements relating to it -- would leak, and i knew that once it was, the briefing would be misreported and useded to paint our investigation in a false light. that's what -- that's exactly what happened last week. although "the washington post" failed, "the wall street

journal" got it right. a may 4 editorial titled, quote-unquote, the f.b.i.'s dubious briefing. i'd like to enter that editorial in the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: the editorial began this way. quote, did the f.b.i. set up two members of congress for political attack under the guise of a defensive briefing? it's possible, and senators ron johnson and chuck grassley are rightly demanding answers, end of quote. on may 3, senator johnson and i wrote to f.b.i. director christopher wray and director of national intelligence, avril haines, asking to meet with them to discuss the august 20 briefings. we need answers, and we need answers now. why did the f.b.i. and the intelligence community brief us? who made that decision?

at the briefing, the f.b.i. didn't even show up -- show us what the intelligence product -- what intelligence product formed the basis for the briefing. i'll tell you this -- even without seeing any paperwork, we were already aware of everything they talked about that very day, and it was unconnected to the substance of our investigation. i asked the f.b.i. whether they had any new intelligence to share, because we hadn't heard anything new, and they didn't give us a single new item. so as far as i'm concerned, the briefing was totally unnecessary. based on the time line of events, it appears the briefing was done because democrats wanted it done, which means it

was a political decision. "the wall street journal" ended its piece by saying this -- quote, whether the f.b.i. was pressured, duped, or actively political, the bureau has again landed in the center of a partisan fight. mr. wray might want to ask how that keeps happening, end of quote. that's exactly right. the f.b.i. and the intelligence community have lots of explaining to do. we already know that under comey, the f.b.i. used intelligence briefings as surveillance operation against trump and his team. did the f.b.i. and the intelligence community also misuse briefing processes against congressional members? only director wray and director haines can answer that question,

and so far they have failed to answer those questions. their credibility -- and more importantly their professionalism -- is on the line. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you -- the presiding officer: excuse me. the senate is? a quorum call. mr. moran: i'm sorry.

i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized. mr. moran: mr. president, we've seen across the many sectors of our economy the on-set of the covid-19 pandemic and its consequences. it has dramatically shifted the supply and demand for lot of products it in unexpected ways. i'm on the floor today to speak about the price of lumber, the impact of the soaring costs are having on homebuilders and home buyers. nationwide, construction for new homes is up 37% over the last year and up 87% in the midwest region where i come from. rising demand for new home construction as well as an upturn in do-it-yourself projects during the pandemic have rapidly driven up the cost of lumber. as a result, since last april, overall lumber prices are up over 300%. lumber and wood products account for roughly is a% the construction costs for a single-family home. we all work to see that that

single-family home is something that is available to americans. it's the american dream. but lumber accounts for the second-largest overall cost of building a new home, only behind the cost of the land that home sits is on. these increases have resulted in a $36,000 increase in the price of a typical family home hand a $13,000 increase in the market value of a multifamily unit. the reality is that record-high lumber prices are putting the american dream of homeownership out of reach for hundreds of thousands of potential home buyers and disproportionately harming middle- and low-income families across our nation. at a time when residential home building is booming, it is essential that homebuilders and consumers have access to the materials they need at competitive prices. historically, canada has been the largest foreign supplier of softwood lumber in the united states. these imports are vital to support the ongoing housing boom

but have been declining, these imports be with declining over the past four years. in april 2017, the u.s. department of commerce announced countervailing duties averaging 20% on softwood lumber products from certain canadian producers. in december of 2020, the average tariff was reduced to 9%. while a reduction in tariffs for some canadian produce certificates a he step in the right direction, additional relief is needed for rising lumber price. at a recent subcommittee hearing, i raised this topic with the u.s. trade representative katherine tai and urged her to enjane in we are canadian counterpart to reach a long-term agreement on softwood lumber trade. it is american home buyers, not canadian lumber producers, who end up paying the cost of these trade restrictions. in addition to working to resolve this trade dispute, we should also work to boost the domestic production of the types of lumber used in home

construction. additional lumber can and should be sustainably harvested from public lands managed by the u.s. forest service. ensuring that domestic saw mills are operating at full capacity will help soften lumber prices. it is important for kansas to have the opportunity and economic means to own their own homes. unfortunately, the current lumber prices are making that dream unattainable for way too many families. resolving a long-standing trade dispute with canada on softwood lumber and better managing our lands will help alleviate the problems facing homeowners and home buyers. mr. president, i yield the floor. but before doing that, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: . quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous

consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: in december of 2019, a new virus was emerging on the opposite side of the world. i spoke at the national defense university. the title of the speech i gave was called american industrial policy in the rise of china. the reaction of many people to that at the time was skepticism. from wall street investors who frankly saw no problem with the status quo on china, from these think tank experts who mocked my claim at the time that our country relied too much on china economically and our supply chain, from tech giants in silicon valley who obsessed with access to the chinese marketplace. but the problem i pointed to at that time in that speech almost two years ago, a year and a half ago, was that for over a quarter of a century, our economic policies have been mostly about one thing -- how american investors and companies can make money by doing business with china. and in that vein, it didn't matter if making money meant allowing china to steal our

intellectual property. it didn't matter if making money meant stable jobs kept disappearing. it didn't matter if it handicapped chinese technology companies to help defeat our country in a future war. finally, americans are waking up to what a mistake that was. it was a bipartisan consensus that was flawed. the 21st century will be defined by the relationship between china and the united states, and frankly i believe that this is our last chance to make sure that it is a balanced relationship. what we do not have time for, our china bill, our china bill, that is a collection of half measures and studies. instead, an actually meaningful china bill is what we need. most members want it. i think we can get to it in a bipartisan way. to do so, i think it has to have six things. to be a meaningful bill on china, it must touch on six things. the first as i said in december of 2019, we need to identify

industries which are critical for our future, and we must spur investment in these key industries. we have to remember we are not in a strategic competition with foreign chinese companies. we are in a strategic competition with the world's largest and second wealthiest nation state. there is no way to compete with china by relying only solely on private investment, not while the chinese communist party subsidizes and cheats to boost its favorite companies. from industrial corporate giants to small businesses that make up our supply chain, the private sector is the most important area of this competition. we can encourage them to step up just like we did for semiconductors with the chips act. frankly, the way we develop the -- developed the vaccine with operation warp speed is an example of a targeted industrial policy in which government partners with the private sector to solve a big problem. you can say what you want about america's response to covid, but we have done vaccines better

than anyone else in the world. not even close. and it's due to that partnership. but an essential part of our strategy has to be the result to build a strong foundation through targeted and sustained federal funding for american research and development. the bipartisan endless frontiers act is a nod in that direction. right now, that bill makes the national science foundation the lead agency in directing $100 billion in government investment. the problem is that's the same agency that time and again has had the research we fund stolen by professors and graduate students who are on the payroll for china. darfa and other advanced research agencies within government have a much better record of protecting research, and i believe would be a far better choice to administer these investments instead. the second thing a real china bill must do is communicate that while we do not seek an armed confrontation with china, we will confront any military aggression. we will maintain our defense commitments with our allies and

we will win any conflict china starts. we must never do anything that leads beijing to doubt our commitment to taiwan, and we must never accept the chinese communist party's illegitimate claims on the world's most important chipping lanes in the south and east china seas. the strategic competition act we recently passed out of the foreign relations committee is largely silent on this topic but chairman menendez has pledged to work with me to include myself, china seas, and east china seas sanctions act in any final bill that we take up here on the floor. the third a real china bill must do is fix broken international and domestic trade laws. the world trade organization is failing miserably, and it must be reformed. china's flagrant intellectual property theft, industrial espionage, and massive subsidies to chinese companies can no longer be ignored and they must be addressed. my fair trade with china enforcement act would help

protect critical industries in america from chinese influence and possession and recover the lost value of secrets and technologies that they have stolen. the fourth area of focus of any real china bill must be making sure china doesn't control our medicines and/or our medical technology and patient data. last year, panic over masks and ventilators was a wake-up call for our medical dependence on beijing. from blood thinners to acetaminophen finish which is the iningredient in tylenol, it is dangerous leverage over america and americans. we should be able to make medicine here. it will not only make us safer, it will create well-paying stable jobs for medical workers. my act would do exactly that and should be included in any real china bill. as i said in september of 2019, we must immediately enact stricter guidelines to make sure

that public funding never contributes to chinese genomic efforts and beat them in that race. if we allow china to dominate that field of medicine, americans will find themselves one day begging chinese americans or even the chinese communist party for access to future lifesaving treatments. the fifth area a real china bill must address is our capital markets. our stock market is the most open, liquid, and profitable in the world, and it is being used by the chinese communist party to fund its military and to fund their companies. any meaningful china bill must cut off the tap and prohibit american money from being invested in communist china's military companies. we need to start requiring more transparency from wall street when it comes to investing in china and chinese government-controlled companies. my american financial markets integrity and security act needs to be part of the solution. how can we claim to be dealing

with chinese manipulation of our capital markets if we don't ban chinese companies exploiting our own stock market from continuing to hurt us? beijing long ago figured out how to get rich and powerful americans to use their influence in american politics. allowing wall street and big finance to enrich themselves by hurting americans, they make a lot of money in the short term for those individuals, but it is hurting america in the long run. it is national economic suicide. the sixth area any real china bill must address is genocide. today in china, nationless corporations cooperating with the chinese communist party force uighur muslims to make clothing, shoes, and even solar panels. sadly, without knowing it, you may have very well purchased a product made partially or entirely by slave labor in

xinjiang. these companies partnering with china with complicit in these crimes. the chinese communist party's reduced labor costs mean increased profits for these corporations. while they lecture us about social justice in america, these companies are making billions off of slavery in china. my bipartisan uighur force labor prevention act has almost half the senate as cosponsors. we must take it up and pass it out of the foreign relations committee as soon as possible. last year, we saw companies, nike, apple, coca-cola, even the u.s. chamber were lobbying against this bill. soon we're going to find out what holds more power in our country. corporations making billions off genocide and slavery or our basic sense of right and wrong. the good news is that today we have finally awoken to the reality of how wrong the old consensus on china was, but we woke up almost too late. we don't have time for half

measures. we must address the dangerous growing imbalance between america and china comprehensively, decisively, and swiftly, or we will live to see a future in which the world's most powerful nation is a totalitarian, genocidal, communist dictatorship and our country is relegated to the role of a once-great nation in decline, and no part of our lives will go unaffected in a world like that. we can see the shadows of it even today. american movies today are free to portray their own country, here, the united states as racist, as bigoted, anything they want, but they automatically self-censor their own movies to make sure that it meets china's standards so they can show those films there. american corporations threaten states whose democratically elected leaders pass laws they object to. they have every right to in our democracy to object. but they will fire american employees and ban messages that

risk getting their corporation kicked out of the chinese market. american teenagers are already turning over valuable personal data to the chinese government on an hourly basis in exchange for the ability to watch what i will admit are clever videos on tiktok. and yet this is nothing compared to the world that awaits if we do not take action, and on this, the lessons of history, we could not be clearer. athens emerged from the second persian world a great power, but the greatness made them decadent and complacent. they thought nothing would ever change, that they could ignore important problems, that they could focus on the trivial. so when conflict finally came, initially they used their superior navy to attack sparta and retreat behind the safety of the city's walls, and that worked for a little while. and then a plague decimated the city, and more enemies of theirs sensed their weakness and joined the fight against them, and then athens fell. like rome and britain later, the

end of athens' golden age came as it always does for a great power. it doesn't come from the outside in. it always comes from the inside out. and now from across the centuries, the lessons of history cry out for our attention. our politics are broken. we fight over the trivial because we think the past is irrelevant, because we think our place in the world will never change, because we think the future will always belong to us automatically. and we hide behind our own version of the walls', two vast oceans, believing we are safe from everything outside. we should not repeat the errors of the great powers of the past. my friends, we don't have time for studies and strategy statements. we need big changes and decisive action. we need to prove our democracy can work again, our system of government can function, that it can solve big problems in big ways. if we succeed, i truly believe a new american century lies ahead.

if we fail, it is a century of hum i williation that awaits us. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. van hollen: mr. president, i'm on the floor to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the resolution that we will be voting on shortly. this is a resolution to protect

all of our constituents against predatory lenders, people who lend others money at loan shark rates and often in deceptive language that can be very confusing to consumers until they get the phone call and they're told they owe unaffordable amounts on loans. and states have been working very hard to protect consumers. in fact, 45 states, states with republican governors and democratic governors, republican attorneys general and democratic attorneys general, 45 states and the district of columbia have passed laws to protect their constituents, their consumers from these loan shark-type loans, from these predatory lending practices. but we've seen these predatory

lenders find a way around these state efforts to protect their consumers, and the tactic they use has come to be known as rent a bank. and the way it works is that national banks can make loans into any state, even if they're not chartered in that state. and so what's happened is these, some of these lenders then go to a national bank and essentially just borrow their name, buy the right to their name, and using that mechanism then can make loans into all 50 states in violation of the state law protections against these yew -- usurious loans. that's what's happening now. when this whole problem began to emerge, we saw the federal government take action. in fact, the minute the o.c.c.

and fdic and state governments caught wind of this new trick in the loan shark playbook, they took action. in fact, under president george w. bush, the o.c.c., the office of the comptroller of the currency, called these rent a bank schemes, quote, an abuse of the national bank charter, unquote. and president bush's comptroller of the currency explained that the o.c.c. was, quote, greatly concerned with the arrangements in which national banks essentially rent out their charters, unquote. and that stance and that position was echoed by state legislatures, again, legislatures from both parties, governors from both parties who then worked to pass laws, state laws to limit the amount that people could charge as interest rates on loans. in fact, just last year in the state of nebraska, voters

passed a ballot initiative with more than 70% support to cap interest rates at 36% on consumer loans. that's the same cap we have in my state of maryland and the same cap that more and more states are adopting across the country. so states are taking measures to protect their constituents, their consumers against these end runs around their laws designed to prohibit these predatory practices. but last october, in the middle of the pandemic, when many working families were plunged into economic uncertainty and turmoil, the former administration, the trump administration, gave these rent-a-bank schemes a free pass to exploit these loopholes again, to create an end run around those state protections for their consumers. and the last administration,

the trump administration, the o.c.c. unveiled what they called the true lender rule. it's a nice-sounding name, an innocent name, but the consequence of that is to unleash the full force of predatory lending on working families, and it reneges on and reverses decades of policy to prevent this end run on usury caps. so what we've seen is predatory lenders move quickly into this space when the trump administration opened the door to it. one online lender recently told its investors that it was going to get around california's new interest rate cap by making loans through, quote, bank sponsors that are not subject to the same proposed state-level rate limitations, unquote. so what you do is you go to a national bank and you essentially rent their name.

and by doing that, you create a loophole that allows you to avoid the state laws that have been put in place to protect against this kind of predatory lending. and we're seeing that now emerge like wildfire around the country. now, mr. president, i do want to be clear, there are many innovative fintech partnerships. these are lenders who use the internet. there are many who are not exhibiting these kind of predatory behaviors, and we should craft a rule that allows legitimate lending consistent with state laws through those fintech practices. but the way this rule was written during the trump administration, it opens the door to all the bad actors. it opens the door wide to the predatory lenders to exploit this loophole. and that's why we're on the

floor today, because this resolution is designed to stop the predatory lending practices that were unleashed by the o.c.c. rule. it's to shut the door on that trump administration o.c.c. rule that now has allowed predatory lenders to rush through it. and what we're seeing now are rates of 100%, 200%, whatever they want. the sky's the limit. some of these interest rates would make loan sharks blush. so we just saw in fact one o.c.c. regulated bank that's been helping a short-term lending company pilot an on line rent a bank installment loans at over 100% a.p.r. the o.c.c. rule is being litigated in court right now to prevent a $67,000 loan to a restaurant owner at a 268%

a.p.r. rate that violates the state law where that restaurant is. so this is a perfect example where a small restaurant owner took out a loan, $67,000, deceptively portrayed, only to discover that it was 268% a.p.r. and when the restaurant owner says wait a minute, i thought the limit in our state was 36%, all of a sudden they discover that the trump o.c.c. opened the door to this end run against their state law protections. that's why, mr. president, we have state attorneys general from red states and blue states, from nebraska and north carolina that have called these rent a bank schemes a, quote, sham, and urged us to act. they wrote to us here in the senate saying, quote, the most efficient course to prevent

unrestrained abuse and avert immediate and ongoing consumer harm would be for congress to invalidate the true lender rule pursuant to its remedial oversight powers under the congressional review act. that's what we will be voting on soon. north carolina's attorney general, josh stein said in a separate statement, quote, we need every tool at our disposal to uphold state law and stop predatory lenders from coming back into our states. so, mr. president, i hope that we will act right now to stop what is a rush by many of these predatory lenders to exploit the opening created by the trump administration's o.c.c. then let's take a pause, let's take time to craft a proper rule that allows legitimate lenders to make loans in ways that do not violate the state

protections for the consumers and do not, at the end of the day, wreak havoc with families who get sucked into unsuspecting terms through deceptive practices. so i urge the united states senate to vote to pass this resolution to protect consumers around the country. and i yield the floor. the banking committee, the banking, housing, urban affairs committee has been working on it. we held a number of hearings on this. i do just want to thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of that committee, senator brown from ohio, who's been a stalwart in protecting consumers. i don't know if he's been to the floor yet, but i just wanted to thank him and other members of

the committee for their efforts, and also thank the biden administration which just sent down a statement of administration support for overturning the o.c.c. rule and for voting in favor of this resolution. thank you, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. when i joined the committee last february, i pledged to examine every issue that came before us with an eye for detail and fresh perspective promoting innovation, free markets and our dual banking system. ms. lummis: i will support the policy goals of the true lender rule. in promoting access to credit for underserved communities. i also recognize how vital it is to provide legal clarity to

financial technology innovators during this time of change. i support all banks powers, both state and national, to export interest rates across state lines and to make and assign loans with clear regulatory certainty. again this promotes access to credit. the issues raised by the comptroller of the currency's true lender rule and senate joint resolution 15, however, are not limited to ensuring access to credit or protecting consumers from predatory lending and has much larger implications for our banking system. state chartered banks have existed since the founding of our republic, after the passage of the national bank act of 1864, our country has fostered a dual banking system and our country is all the stronger for

it. the united states is the leader in global financial systems because we have a banking system that is based on competitive equality, flexibility, and innovation. under the federal laws that protect our dual banking system, state and nationally chartered depository institutions have nearly identical powers to carry out the business of banking across state lines with legal clarity. this is because of state parity and the so-called state wildcard laws, the regal-meal act, and subsequent amendments over the years. the federal reserve and fdic have broadly supported these policies as well, adopting rules that promote equality for state banks, vis-a-vis national banks. ester george, president of the kansas city fed noted in a 2012 speech that, quote, the dual

banking system has provided and continues to offer significant benefits to our financial system and economy. multiple options for state and federal charters have led to considerable innovation and improvement in banking services. end quote. so congress and our federal bank supervisors on a roundly bipartisan basis have always been committed to maintaining parity between state and nationally chartered institutions. this brings us to today's vote. the problem with the true lender rule before us is that it has the potential to upend parity between state and national banks. in a nutshell, the o.c.c. true lender rule determines which banks, or other financial institutions, actually make a consumer loan. many states have different legal standards for determining this. ultimately this would allow

national banks to make an assigned -- make and assign loans more easily than state chartered banks, giving them a distinct advantage in the lending business. the board of governors of the federal reserve and the federal deposit insurance corporation did not adopt come pannianons -- companions to adopt a similar rule for state banks. the fdic confirmed this during public remarks in december 2020. consequently we are left with a scenario where national banks and federal savings associations have a great deal of legal clarity about marketplace lending and state chartered banks do not. why does this matter? mr. president, there are approximately 3,954 state chartered banks in our country as of december.

there are approximately 1,062 national banks and federal savings associations that are depository institutions. that means of the approximately 5,000 banks in our dual banking system, about 79% are state banks and 21 banks are national banks. the o.c.c. true lender rule only applies to 21% of the banks in our country. does a rule that only applies to 21% of the banks really promote parity between state and nationally chartered institutions? this chart shows plain as day that it does not. moreover, state chartered banks are the primary banks currently engaged in the kinds of marketplace lending envisioned by the o.c.c. true lender rule. many state banks have innovative

and thriving partnerships with nonbank lenders today. the o.c.c. true lender rule will cause those partnerships to shift to national banks. why would a nonbank lender choose to partner with a state bank that lacks the legal clarity of a national bank or savings association and the preemption that follows federal law? i do not believe they will. there would be a great deal of legal uncertainty for them because of state consumer protection laws in many of the state bank partnerships we see today in the marketplace lending arena may disappear as the nonbank lenders naturally gravitate toward the greater legal clarity of national banks. this rule, in effect, would make

these innovative partnerships the domain of national banks, rendering state chartered banks to be more like second-class institutions. that has not been the will of congress in the past, and i don't believe it is today. a prominent law firm noted in january of this year that, quote, for institutions that participate in marketplace lending, most of which are state chartered banks, the lack of an fdic rule creates a significant exception to the federal support for the marketplace lending model and appears to largely leave the issue to the states. end quote. many wonder why states cannot adopt their own true lender rules on a state-by-state basis or adopt some kind of uniformed law. this likely will not work for a number of reasons. first, were a state like wyoming were to adopt its own true lender rule for its own banks, what would require another state

to respect the wyoming true lender rule and set aside its own consumer protection laws that conflict with the wyoming law? it likely would not. and that state would likely require a wyoming bank, without a branch in that state, to abide by its own consumer protection laws in doing business there. this is a basic tenant of states maintaining sovereignty within their own borders, limited only by the u.s. constitution and federal law. secondly, a uniform law adopted at the state level would likely take three to five years, and by that time marketplace lending would normally be the province of nationally chartered institutions. there would then be no need for the law. so where does that leave our dual banking system? the o.c.c. true lender rule collar nice a thorny legal question and restricts the application of state consumer

protection laws, providing legal clarity in the marketplace lending to 21% of the banks in this country while essentially telling the other 79% that they should convert to a national charter or risk being left behind. that is the kind of choice congress has rejected in the past. many question the value of using the congressional review act against the true learned rule -- lender rule since it will prevent the o.c.c. from adopting a similar rule in the future. however, again, both the fdic and the federal reserve likely do not have the requisite statutory authority to adopt their own true lender rule anyway. as a result, there is no rule or agency-based solution that fixes this problem in a satisfactory way. for the true lender rule to apply equally to all state and national banks, congress must

act. leaving the o.c.c. true lender rule in place would reduce the likelihood of congress fixing the issue. disapproving this rule will have this remain top of mind for many and can be fixed in a way that has a level playing field. is this a classic example of an issue crying out for a uniformed national standard enacted by congress which applies to all banks. the united states is the leader of the global financial system for many reasons, but one of those is surely the innovation competition and diversity of thought brought about by our dual banking system. this is a privilege, not a right, however, and one must work hard to maintain that for future generations. i am proud to be a vocal advocate for financial innovation in this chamber and i will continue to work hard

towards modernizing our financial system in a responsible manner. however, for innovation to be truly lasting, it has to be built on a solid foundation and not pick winners and losers between national banks and state banks. only congress can truly fix this issue. i look forward to working with my colleagues to accomplish this. in the coming days, i'll be introducing legislation to do just that. until this is fixed, the current valid rule will continue to provide legal clarity to federal and state banks. i urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider the potential impact of the o.c.c. true lender rule on state chartered banks. in order to preserve our dual banking system and congress's past actions to ensure parity between state and nationally chartered banks, i do not have

any other option but to support senate joint resolution 15. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, this is national police week. it's a time every year when we stop to pay tribute to our law enforcement officers around the country, the men and women in blue who serve us every day. in my state in ohio and in every state represented in this chamber. we also remember the brave law enforcement officers who tragically died in the line of duty. we can never forget is this a dangerous profession.

the national law enforcement memorial and museum reported that 2020 was the deadliest year for law enforcement in decades. in ohio alone we sadly lost six brave law enforcement officers in the past year, here in the capitol we lost three officers in the past year, including on january 6. in the course of our nation's history, more than 24,000 officers have died in the line of duty. i was proud to join colleagues in march in sponsoring legislation called the protect and serve act which would create federal penalties on those who would wish to harm or kill a police officer. i believe it would help deter these crimes. i think it would make our men and women in blue safer and help save lives. this week i urge my colleagues to stand with me in standing with our fallen police officers an thanking them and law enforcement for what they do every day to protect us. one way to express our gratitude is by passing laws that will

assist them in their critical work to keep them safe. with that in mind, i'm also on the floor today to call on my colleagues to support our law enforcement officers by taking decisive action to help them to keep some of the deadliest drugs in the world from coming into our communities. it's not an overstatement to say that this is a matter of life or death. overdosed deaths in the united states have sadly reached a high during the covid-19 pandemic. according to data from centers for disease control, 87,000 americans died during the 12-month period between decembe, the most recent data which we have. this can be directly attributed to the circumstances surrounding the pandemic. so many families feeling the pain of these losses. and sadly, based on the current trends, we expect calendar year 2020, in full, to be even worse. what's the main driver of these

overdoses and overdose deaths? synthetic opioid epidemics, -- opioids, most notely fentanyl. it is debtly and incredibly addictive. for years this has been coming to our shores from china. first predominately through our mail system and with our new legislation in place to prevent that from happening, much of it is now coming in through mexico. in 2019, there were 70,630 deaths from opioids and other drugs and more than half of those, 36,359, involved fentanyl, sometimes mixed with other drugs like cocaine, crystal meth or heroin. so of all the poisons, fentanyl is the moss deadly. it -- most deadly. it does have a medical purpose to treat patients in severe pain the way that morphineused. it is scheduled under schedule

two. in order to avoid prosecution, drug traffickers started making slight modifications to fentanyl, called fentanyl analogs. evil scientists in mexico, india, working in unrelated pharmaceutical plans will make a slight modification to fentanyl, sometimes creating a molecule to create these copy cats. while it may have the same narcotic properties, this allows the traffickers to evade prosecution, oftentimes by the way the copycats are more powerful than fentanyl itself. take for example carfentanil. these substances are the reasons i'm on the floor today. in 2018, 2018, in recognition of the growing threat these copycats pose to our public

health, the d.e.a. temporarily scheduled fentanyl-related subsubstances -- substances as schedule one, the highest designation they can give. we passed two temporary extensions of that designation. most recently congress passed a five-month extension just ahead of the previous deadline of may 6, just a couple of weeks ago. and president biden signed that legislation into law last week. i supported that temporary extension because the alternative was worse. the only alternative was to let these substances become legal. but i don't think kicking the can down the road for another five months is nearly enough to safeguard against the threat of copycat fentanyl. we need to do much more between now and when this temporary scheduling extension expires in october. law enforcement needs certainty and the drug cartels and those evil scientists need to know we are serious in addressing this problem, that there will be consequences. we need a permanent solution.

specifically let's pass bipartisan legislation i introduced with my colleague senator manchin called fight fentanyl, which simply says let's not allow these illicitly manufactured and deadly synthetic opioids to suddenly become legal again. that's what law enforcement wants. what's what our communities demand. that's what we deserve to give them. it's long overdue that we make this designation permanent. i know some of my colleagues oppose permanent scheduling of these fentanyl drugs because they're concerned about mandatory minimum sentences and that also it can hinder research into future medications to treat addiction. let me address both of those quickly. first, there's this concern about the harsh punishments that don't fit the nature of the crime. i share that concern. that's why our legislation ensures that mandatory minimum sentences are not automatically imposed in any criminal case. we want the judge to look at the severity of the crime and consider all relevant factors in sentencing. so that issue has been addressed in our bipartisan legislation. there's been a great deal of

conversation about the impact of prosecutions and incars rairgses on specific populations, including minority communities. what's often lost in this debate i will say is the growing impact of fatal overdoses in those same communities. since 2016 while white fatalities have decreased through the period of 2019, the data we have shows that overdoses from opioids among black americans, particularly black men, have actually gotten worse, not better. from 2011 to 2016, that same time period when white overdoses and deaths were reduced, black americans had the highest increase in synthetic-involved opioid overdose deaths compared to all populations. 2017 to 2018, overall opioid involved di tallties decreased by just over 4%. rates among black and hispanic americans actually increased. this is an issue we must address here. another issue my colleagues have raised again is concern that permanently scheduling fentanyl

somehow hinders research in treating addiction. first of all i agree we need this research, we need it badly. one example of this is coming up with naloxazone, a miracle drug based on heroin that reverses the effects of overdoses. i spoke to a scientist who developed the nasal version of this that lax season -- that lox season. it's a miracle. there are barriers to being approved, to legally research schedule one substances. there's also a stigma to conducting this kind of research even though we know it can lead to the development of new treatments. but this is something we can easily address by allowing qualified researchers to study fentanyl analogs under schedule two as opposed to schedule one. so we can address that issue. imhe open to my colleagues to address these barriers. but i would urge my colleagues that we need to use the next five months to do the hard work of finding a permanent solution

to this crisis before we have to once again run the risk of letting these drugs become legal and the message that sends and the deaths that would occur as a result. the united states senate can take the lead and permanently classify these dangerous narcotics that are literally killing tens of thousands of our fellow citizens every year. instead of kicking the can down the road again for five months from now, let's make it permanent. lives are at stake. it's important that we continue to focus in this body as we have on the demand side of this equation. prevention, treatment, longer-term recovery for fentanyl and for other substances. but it's also important that we not allow these substances to come on the streets at lower and lower costs and greater and greater volumes. that is what would happen if we do not move as a congress to ensure that these fentanyl copycats and fentanyl itself remains illicit drugs as they are. let's do the right thing for our communities, do the right thing

for law enforcement. let's be sure they have the predictability and certainty in law enforcement to know these criminals can be prosecuted, these traffickers. we need to act now to address the threat of these deadly fentanyl drugs coming into our communities. i urge the senate to pass the fight fentanyl bill. join us in this effort so we can better work to reverse the tragic rise in overdose deaths around the united states of america. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the vote we're about to take on this van hollen resolution, s.j. res. 15, is a bipartisan

opportunity for us to show people that, the people whom we serve, that we're on their side. states all over the country, red and blue states, states in the south, in midwest, on both coasts have all recognized that people need protections from predatory lenders. that's why nearly every state in the district of columbia have passed laws to limit, to cap the interest, the amount of interest that can be charged on payday and other loans. in the late 1990's, payday lenders desperate to find a way to evade state law that limited them from charging exorbitant interest rates that trap people in a cycle of debt they can't get out of, no matter how hard they work. they came up with what the controller of the currency called rent a charter, what we now know a rent a bank scheme because banks are generally not subject to these state laws. payday lenders funnel their

loans through a small number of willing banks. it looked like the banks were making the loans when it was really the payday lenders. federal regulators, both parties, republicans and democrats, saw through this very obvious ruse that hurt low-income people that were forced to get credit any way they could. federal regulators cracked down under both president bush and president obama. the office controller of the currency, the federal deposit smurns corps, o.c.c. and fdic shut down a series of these schemes by payday lenders and banks. states from across the country also stepped in to protect their residents. georgia, west virginia, my state of ohio, pennsylvania, new york, maryland, montana, south dakota, colorado, illinois, virginia, nebraska, all passed new laws and regulations to either stop these schemes or to cap interest rates on payday loans at 36%.

still a very, very high number that most of us never pay, but people that can only get credit that way end up paying it unfortunately. still a high number that obviously will make any company making these loans plenty of money. several other states, including california and ohio, also passed laws to limit the interest that can charged on consumer loans. these new laws passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. get this. more than 75% of voters in nebraska and south dakota supported the ballot issues initiatives to cap interest rates on payday loans. so three-fourths of the voters going to the polls in a popular vote wanted to cap interest rates on payday loans in those two states president. in recent years new financial technology companies emerged that partner with banks to offer responsible small dollar loans

at more affordable rates. but we also have a spat group of online -- separate group of on-line payday leandzers renovating the same old rent a bank scheme to offer abusive high interest loans. they're not even amendmenting to hide it. one online lender told its investors it would get around california's new law by making loans through -- these were their words, this lender -- banks making loans through bank sponsors not subject to the same proposed state level rate limitations. he or she is even acknowledging that states, voters or state legislatures or both are saying we want to cap those interest -- the interest rates so people don't take out a small loan and end up paying 200, 300 times -- 200%, 300% after these payday lenders -- after these payday lenders put that on them.

another lender said there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to replace our california business with a bank program. so they know what they have to do. they know they're going against the intent of the legislature and the intent of the voters. given the broad bipartisan support for these laws, we had hoped that the trump o.c.c. would take action and crack down on these schemes. the same way that bush and obama had done, schemes that have been rejected by voters and legislatures over and over in state after state after state. but last year the o.c.c. issued what's known as the true lender rule overruling voters of both parties giving essentially a free pass to these abusive rent a bank schemes. now to fight back on behalf of low-income people and on behalf of fair play, a broad bipartisan coalition is asking congress to overturn the o.c.c.'s harmful true lender rule. that support includes credit

unions, state bank regulators, republicans and democrats alike, state attorneys general of both parties, one of the most outspoken has been the republican attorney general of nebraska because his state passed -- his state's voters passed a limit, 75% of them, to keep interest rates down. support from small business groups, support from the military officers association of america. we know that payday lenders especially prey on young members of the military. one of them may be off in a foreign country while the spouse stays back at the base or stays back in a community, particularly -- is struggling with just having the resources to get by. they're preyed upon so often. another group, the national association of evangelicals, the southern baptist convention, other members of the faith in just lending coalition.

that coalition wrote to congress. quo, predatory payday and auto title lenders are notorious for exploiting loopholes in order to offer debt trap loans to families struggling to make ends meet. the o.c.c.'s true lender rule creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. that came from this coalition, coalition again, attorneys general, military officers association, national association of evangelicals, southern baptist convention. they're saying the o.c.c.'s true lender rule creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. we know why these commonsense laws that our states passed are popular. we know why they enjoy bipartisan support in states across the country. people don't want abusive lenders to prey on them, their loved ones, their neighbors. some issues that come before the senate are complicated. they divide people. there are authority nuances to consider. mr. president, this isn't one of

them. it's simple. let the people -- let's protect the people whom we serve. they've clearly cried out for us to do this. we should protect those people. i urge my colleagues to support s.j. res. 15 to overturn this rule. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: first met me

thank our chair of the banking committee and somebody who has fought against the abuses in the financial services industry throughout his career, senator brown. let me also thank senator van hollen, who again has been one of those leaders and doing great things to help people who are often taken advantage of. now, for millions of working americans, mr. president, one of the most dangerous things that can happen is falling victim to predatory lenders. unscrupulous actors have always promised quick cash or credit to people with unexpected expenses or financial difficulties, only to trap them with crippling interest rates that can erase a person's life savings or even claim their homes. they're in trouble. they reach out for the lifeshrine, and the lifeline is a -- the lifeline and the lifeline is a trap, sometimes trapping some for their whole lives. that's why more than 40 states have passed laws that prohibit this behavior and place limits

on interest rates made by nonbanking learns. it runs the gamut from liberal california to conservative texas inexplicably, the trump administration decided to give these predatory lenders a massive loophole to circumvent state law and once again prey on low-income americans. under the trump administration's rules, so long as payday lenders found a bank to provide the cash up front and attach their name to the transaction, interest rates were suddenly is okay even if the state explicitly banned it. so typical of the trump administration not caring about average folks at all and just listening to the special interests. it had devastating consequences for working families and for small businesses. in new york, the owner of a southern food restaurant in harlem took out a $67,000 loan from a fraudulent lender to make

renovations to their restaurant. they fell behind on payments and tried to work with their lender when covid hit and realized that their loan had an a.p.r. of 268%. rather than work towards a solution, the lender went to the bank to try and foreclose on their property. their property in which they had put blood and sweat and tears. saying the trump rule gave them the grounds to do so. it mattered little that new york state law had a 268% interest rate as blatantly illegal. so today's vote is simple -- it would revoke the trump administration's so-called true lender rule that permits predatory lender to exploit working americans. in the middle of a pandemic, the last thing we should be doing is perpetrating the rule that makes it easier for payday lenders to scam working people and business owners. with today's vote, the senate stands up for working families

and small businesses all across the country by repealing this terrible essentially scrooge-like rule pushed by former president trump and his allies. and one final point. for those out there who say elections don't make a difference, just look at this. here was a rule protecting people, states protected people, the trump administration comes in and rips away those protections, leaving so many people bare and defenseless because they're desperate, they need the money. elections occur, a new democratic president, a democratic senate, and this horrible, horrible rule change by the trump administration is the undone, and we go back to giving some help and protection to working families and small business people. this story could be repeated not just with c.r.a.'s but up and down the line, up and down the line. elections do make a difference, and today's vote shows one of many examples.

i yield the floor, and i ask for the -- i ask unanimous consent that the remaining tile be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas -- nope. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 57, s.j. res. 15, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, and so so forth. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber who wishes to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 47. the joint resolution is passed. mr. schumer: i thank the senator from ohio for the excellent not only moving this forward but vote counting that he did which

worked with a little bit of a margin of error. now, mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president, pursuant to senate resolution 27, the finance committee being tied on the question of reporting, i move to discharge the senate finance committee from further consideration of the nomination of jaquita brooks lasour of virginia to be administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services. the presiding officer: under the provisions of senate resolution 27, there will be now up to four hours of debate on the motion equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with no point of order, motions, or amendments in order. mr. schumer: for the information of all senators, we expect a

vote on the motion to discharge to occur around noon tomorrow on wednesday, may 12. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i thank my colleagues for their vote on this resolution which was so important to protect people from being abused by payday lenders. the s.j. res. 15 will be a big deal, saving a lot of money for a lot of low-income people that have been fleeced far too many times. i thank the leader. i thank in my office laura swanson and jon singleton for

their work in making sure everybody was here and everybody was -- learned these issues so well and how important that was for our state and for our country. so i thank them. mr. president, i would -- i ask that my following remarks be inserted in a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. each year during police week, we honor the law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their communities. this year, we we add the names f four ohioans to the national law enforcement memorial who laid down their lives last year. corporal adam mcmillan of hamilton county sheriff's office, detective james michael schernovicz of cleveland, officer kaya grant of springdale. sadly, we already know of two names that will be added to the memorial next year. officer brandon stalker of the toledo police department, officer jason lagore who worked

for the ohio department of natural resources. each one of these losses is a tragedy for a family, for a community, and for their fellow officers. ms. grant's mother, i know, and i know talking to her how tragic this is for her, for her family, and for the families of all of these officers who gave their lives in service to others. over the past year, we've had many reminders of the work that must be done to reform and reimagine public safety, to rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities. these ohioans' lives are a reminder of the ideals we should thrive for. officers who are true public servants in the best sense of the word, people who gave themselves to their communities, and these ohioans gave so much. officer deal was the officer of two young sons. he had married his high school sweetheart. in a letter he wrote to his family during ramadan, the devout muslim wrote every day i

put on the uniform, it's with the intention to protect the innocent and the weak in my community. those who spoke at his memorial service said when you think of islam, think of this man who gave his life on the 4th of july to defend the values of the united states. detective james skirnovich spent the years serving my city in cleveland. he served in neighborhood policing dricts. in 2013, he joined the gang impact unit, working to reduce violence in cleveland. he was a devoted father, played softball for many years, traveling to tournaments in the steel city enforcers. corporate adam mcmillan spent 19 years serving the public, the sheriff's office, and hamilton county, cincinnati. so many in his community spoke about his kindness. his pastor said at the memorial service, he was the kind of guy who asked the person at the drive-through window how their day was going. his generous spirit will live on. captain mcmillan is an organ

donor and his loss is giving new life to someone else. clay grant was a reserve officer training -- was in the reserve officer training corps in college. after graduating and working with at-risk kids in cincinnati, she joined the springdale police department. her co-workers said instead of going into the military and then going into politics, like many do, she wanted to serve the community. another colleagues relayed a story when she saved a woman's life. the department got a call about a person considering taking her own life, and they searched and searched but found no one. they were close to giving up, but officer grant didn't. she found the woman in a parking garage in time to save her life. as part of her dedication to our country, officer grant interned for a u.s. senator while she was in college. that senator's name was joe biden. earlier this year, on his first trip to ohio as president, joe biden met with officer grant's mother gina mobley to thank her

for her daughter's service to him, to her country, and to her community. we can't begin to repay the debt we owe ms. mobley and all these families. we can work to reform our systems to protect more officers and communities they swear an oath to protect. this week, i'm introducing legislation, law enforcement training for mental health response act with senator inhofe of oklahoma. we have seen too many americans, both officers and those they serve hurt or killed when law enforcement respond to people in their communities suffering a mental health crisis. this bill would invest in training to help families resolve those situations safely for themselves and for their communities. they would help officers resolve these situations safely for themselves and for the communities they serve. law enforcement officers, reformers, advocates all agree we have pushed too many problems onto the criminal justice system. respecting officers to be social

workers and crisis responders and family mediators without the proper training to fill those roles. we need to actually invest in mental health and education and other social support. we need to give officers the training and resources they need to help when called on to respond to these situations. this police week -- let's offer more than empty words. let's honor the memory of these women and men who laid down their lives in service of their community by getting their -- by getting their fellow officers and the training they need to do their jobs and to build trust with the communities they've sworn to protect. the presiding officer: the

senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak flinn for up to ten -- therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, if i could say this is kind of like the old days with you up there. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 205, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 205, promoting minority health awareness and supporting the goals and ideals of national minority health month in april 2021, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. brown: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye.

all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 206, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 206, supporting the designation of the week of april 18 through april 24, 2021, as national crime victims rights weeks. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. brown: i ask unanimous i ass consent the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, the last resolution, i ask unanimous

consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., wednesday, may 12, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to discharge the nomination of chaqita brooks lasure, from the finance committee and at noon all time be considered expired, the senate vote on the motion to discharge the brooks lasure nomination, that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session of the senate ripen following the motion to discharge, if cloture is invoked on calendar number 108, ronald stroman, all postcloture time expire at 5:00 p.m., and the

motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senator inhofe of oklahoma. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, winston churchill famously said, quote, there's only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them. the republicans and democrats agree strong alliances, partnerships are key to the ahe

is metric advantage that the united states has over its competitors. like every president before him, president biden has rightfully made america's alliances and partnerships part of his administration's national security policy. but alliances and partnerships are not a substitute for a strong american military. a strong military is the foundation of our alliances, military power creates leverage and credibility for our diplomats and just as importantly it creates -- it creates a deterrent. real deterrence cannot be achieved unless it is credible and it cannot be credible unless we properly fund our military and have our allies and partners with us. it's got to be both. you can't have one or the other. and why? because partnerships are twoway

streets. alliances aren't just for show. they aren't just empty statements or blindly money to support vague goals. these relationships are built on mutual interests. they benefit us as much as our country. look at the billions of dollars some of our allies have contributed to u.s. bases in their country. the national defense strategy, this -- this book is the one -- it was put together in 2018. it was put together by 12 people, six republicans, six democrats, all experts in their field. in fact, one of them just this morning was in a committee hearing before our committee and this -- this document has been our blueprint for a long period of time. and so this is what we have and this is what we feel is going to be a something that will stay with us for a long time. now, in this book it says

that -- and i'm quoting from it now. mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships are crucial to our strategy providing a durable asemitic advantage that no competitor can priefl or conscious -- rival or match. but that requires more than saying nice things about our allies and partners. the bipartisan national defense commission report, written by the six democrats and six republicans, make this very clear. they talk about these alliances and partnerships have ultimately rested on a foundation of military strength. so when president biden says america's alliances are our greatest asset and then goes to underfund the military, it defies common sense. underfunding the military threatens the foundation that

underwrites the effectiveness of our alliances and partnerships. let me explain a little bit of how it works. we'll start with the nuclear modernization. the united states maintains its safe and effective nuclear arsenal to protect american families, but also to protect our partners and allies. our nuclear umbrella has three benefits. first, it makes clear to china and russia which countries stand with us. you know, they don't know otherwise and they have terrible practice of lying about who -- what countries are with us or are with them. so this makes it very clear. it's on the dotted line. second, it has the benefit of giving those countries the security of relying on our deterrents rather than feeling like they have to develop their own nuclear weapons. and, thirdly, our umbrella of extended nuclear deterrence is a pillar of our goal of global

nuclear nonpro livation. -- nonproliferation. if we take away that umbrella, which is what would happen if we reduce our defense budget, it's likely that nuclear weapons will become more common, not less. president biden has said that nuclear proliferation is one of his priorities. do you see the disconnect here? and that's why it's so concerning to me that some administration officials -- i'm talking about the current administration -- some of those officials are talking about drastically reducing our nuclear modernization efforts and i'm also concerned that some in the administration and in congress are targeting our fifth generation stealth air power. don't get me wrong. the f-35, they've had their problems. we all understand that. but it's a cornerstone of our ability to operate with our allies and our partners. the f-35 program -- that's our

program -- it has 21 allies out there and partners in it. for many it's their main capability and will be their primary contribution to any kind of a high-end problem that should come forth. now, when we talk about cutting the program or moving away from it, their governments question our commitment. there's no substitute aircraft or capability for these -- these countries. we want our allies and partners to fight along with us. there's no question about that. let's remember what happened. first of all, the f-35 is a fifth generation vehicle and we only have one other one, that was the f-22. i remember so well just a few years ago, we were at that time going to have 700, f-22 aircraft but only ended up with 187 of them. because they were talking about like they are talking today and

the administration is saying that we don't need to have as many f-35. but we absolutely do need to have. and we don't want to make the same mistake that we made several years ago with the f-22. our combatant commanders told us that we'll be outnumbered by self-fighters in the south pacific by 2025. and it will be even worse if american f-22's cuts the lead because you know other countries, like our allies in australia and japan, they would be cutting theirs if we cut ours. well, that's just one of the many serious problems that we've got in the indo-pacific. our partners and allies are worried about u.s. force posture and our ability to deter. and, if necessary, defeat china's use of military force. i heard that for myself way back in 2018 when i was in that area in the south china sea, many of

our allies and partners in that region, they were clear. they saw firsthand how china was preparing to swiftly defeat our forces in the pacific. they were trying to figure out how -- if we would be able there for them when that happened or if they would be needing to start cozying up to china. they are not going to sit around and wait for us to perform. they are going to have to know that we're going to be there for them. our competition out there in that area is clearly china. we know what they are doing and we know what their plans are and we're concerned about it. fortunately our significant investment in the military under president trump was encouraging sign to our allies and partners. they were all very proud of us. but afternoon watching the chinese communist party dismantle in hong kong and commit genocide on the uighurs

in northwest china, our partners and allies in the indo-pacific are now worried that china will try to invade and anne x taiwan. how long have we been talking about that? the general master testified that taiwan is the most significant flashpoint that could lead to large-scale war, saying china would take military action against taiwan as tune as 2020, the current and former commanders both emphasize the near-term threat. it's a real threat, mr. president. it's out there. this is a primary reason why the armed services committee, with overwhelming the bipartisan support, has put in place our specific deterrent initiative. we call that the p.d.i. the p.d.i. is intended to

bolster our degraded force posture in the indo-pacific to counter china's military buildup. we've got to restore the favorable balance of power in the region where the problem is the most -- the most acute, and that's west of the international dateline where our partners and allies are most immediately threatened by chinese aggression. p.d.i. is fundamentally about building basic infrastructure so that we can operate with our allies and partners. it will mean more distributed and smaller bases, maybe hardened communications as well as increase in more -- and more realistic exercises with allies and partners. if we want p.d.i. to succeed, we need to restore it properly. both admiral davidson and alka ma leano told that in a

committee hearing. after the hallowed promises of the obama administration to, quote, pivot to the pacific and after almost no change in the -- in the u.s. military posture in the region over the last two decades, our partners and allies in indo-pacific are worried and justly so. they want to see sustained investment matching sustained commitment, especially after president trump's rightfully pushed them to step up their own investments. they answered the call but president biden will create a credibility problem if we don't continue to invest. we want them to do that. this is the case. we're going to have to get this done. our endo pay com partners are watching closely to see what we do with the defense budget top line and with the p.d.i. what

they see is president biden's defense budget that does not even keep up with inflation. now, we're talking about the defense budget that he came out with just a couple of weeks ago and actually had a reduction. didn't even meet the inflation at that time. and didn't come close to what was really recommended by this document that we're supposed to be using. it's a bipartisan document. and so let alone matching real growth we need to implement the national defense strategy. so over in europe, biden proclaimed, quote, america is back. that sounds good. claimed reversal from the previous administration. it's just not true. but again actions aren't matching words. rhetoric without resources will devastate our credibility and undermine our alliances here too. if defense cuts impact the european deterrence initiative,

it will serve to weaken our european posture and make our allies and partners more susceptible to russian aggression. without a strong defense budget, the biden administration's bold pledge to support nato and deter russia will ring hollow for our european allies and partners. sharing the burden is a key benefit of our international alliances and partnerships, but our nato alliances might see the administration's military reductions as a signal that they no longer need to meet their commitments to spend 2% of the g.d.p. now, you remember when the previous president, when president trump talked to them about our allies to start bellying up and participating. nato, those nations are our friends. but they're not coming to the level that they're going to have to do to carry their end of it.

don't forget whether we're facing russia, china, or other adversaries in the other part of the world operating jointly with our allies and partners is a core part of our ability to deter conflict in multiple theaters. but it requires investment. take the refueling support we provided for our french allies in mali. six million pounds of fuel to allow the french to take on the critical counterterrorism mission and support their troops on the ground. it would have cost us billions to do this mission by ourselves. that's why we need the allies. the same goes for iraq, afghanistan, somalia, yemen and elsewhere. a good portion of our defense budget pays for our military to support our allies and partners so that we don't have to send our own troops over there and our allies can do it for us. and it gives us the insight into

those operations. so you see what would happen if our military's ability to posture forward and stay ready is choked by inadequate defense funding. our allies and partners would suffer, not improve. and the u.s. would end up spending more money for less security. and this goes directly against the biden administration's stated goals thinking that alliances and partnerships can substitute for u.s. military capability and capacity is wishful thinking. it's illogical. that strategy will harm our national security. as former defense secretary jim mattis said, throughout history we see nations with allies thrive and nations without allies wither. and if we want to win against our strategic competitors, it would take both a strong fully

resourced military as well as strong alliances and partnerships. but let's be clear. one is not an alternative for the other. you've got to have both. so it's clear then that we need our allies so how do we maintain this mutual relationship with robust defense spending 3% to 5% real growth, that's what it calls for right here. this year we should have 3% to 5% increase in the president's -- and the him's budget has came -- the president's budget has came out with a net decrease. that's why this whole thing is so important. just this morning we had a hearing and we had one of the authors of this book, and i asked him the same question. this was put together back in 2018. is it still accurate today? he said yeah, it is. and it doesn't even increase enough to keep up with inflation. so eric edelman, he's one of the cosponsors of the n.d.s. that we're referring to here.

it's been our blueprint for five years now. the report said it best in an article this week by eric edelman. he said in this article, and i'm quoting now, it remains a fact that allies and adversaries will see the united states commitment to defense as a crucial benchmark for assessing u.s. willingness and ability to succeed at long-term competition with its authoritarian adversaries. he continued. this is eric edelman. quote, a tough declaratory policy without adequate military means to reinforce it is a recipe for disaster, particularly in the indo-pacific region. i would just say this. president biden walks the walk but when it comes to supporting our allies, they don't do it. i and many others know that it's meaningless with a strong defense budget to back it up.

and we need a i looker top line. we need a higher top line. it's going to have to be somewhere in the range that was put together by the group that directs and republicans have outlined what we have to do for america to survive. so we need a higher top line, and we're going to end up getting a higher top line. and with that i yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until the senate today had two nominees others served as deputy education secretary. also voted to overturn the trump administration role regarding bank lending practices. later in the week the senate will take up nominations to the u.s. postal service board of governors and the nominee

for deputy secretary of commerce. live coverage of the u.s. senate always here on cspan2. >> see spanish unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. spector thinking it's a community center? more than that. comcast is parting with a thousand committee centers to provide wi-fi enabled low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving a front row seat to democracy. up next on cspan2 a conversation from the heritage foundation about the future of the space force which was proposed by the trump administration. among those who will hear from former nasa administrator jim brannon stein who served in the trump